Reason And Common Ground

Small typo in the article. No big deal...

"Realist philosophers do hold that all valid knowledge must be in some way reducible to sense experience, but they do not hold that all knowledge must directly accessible to the senses."

Missing a "be" before "directly accessible to the senses."

Probably can't catch it before publication but I thought I'd mention it to you before any snotty IDers do...

And while I'm here. Nice work.

-mike

... those with religious conviction should pursue science with a religious worldview on equal footing as those who engage it with a naturalistic perspective. www.crosswalk.com/blogs/JWhite/11566356/

In a sermon shortly before his death in May, Falwell criticized “naive Christian leaders” for being “duped” by environmentalism, which he told his congregation at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va., was “Satan’s attempt to redirect the church’s primary focus” from evangelism.

A new holy war is growing within the conservative evangelical community, with implications for both the global environment and American politics. For years liberal Christians and others have made protection of the environment a moral commitment. Now a number of conservative evangelicals are joining the fight, arguing that man's stewardship of the planet is a biblical imperative and calling for action to stop global warming.

Pvm: Excellent response. On his blogsite Trask claims that the responses to his article have been so far unsophisticated... And yet Trask is also on the record as arguing that a Christian worldview provides for a better foundation for environmental policy. And yet some of the most vocal opponents to environmental policy have been evangelical Christians.

Many evangelical Christians oppose environmentalism on the grounds that the Next Life is of far, far greater importance than this current life, and that trying to improve this dying world is, at best, a waste of time, what with the Second Coming and Armageddon around the corner and all.

As someone with a couple degrees in the humanities, I kind of want to grab these creationist whackos and scream "Postmodernism: You're doing it wrong!" at them. Considering how often Creationists outright lie and/or engage in wanton acts of semantic pollution, this isn't exactly news, however.

At least where I went to school, Postmodernism was treated as an analytical framework, much in the same way as Marxist, Keynesian, and classical liberal frameworks are used for analysis in economics. One of the things Postmodernist analysis does seem to be really good at is interrogating bias and distortion in social and semantic systems. Which of course is exactly why Creationists use it backwards, since they're trying to create bias and distortion in the current social and semantic system.

Not only that, but they seem to be deliberately mis-reading some of the key concepts, and applying it to areas where it's generally not intended to go. In a sense, you could say the Creationists are quote-mining literary theory, which is offensive on so many levels I hardly know where to start.

gabriel: 'Rapture' theology is a recent innovation and can easily be shown to be false, despite its mass appeal in the USA. It is good to see that evangelicals are starting to get the message (especially if I think of the situation 15 years ago). Here's hoping the trend continues.

Very good article.

I was on law review in law school and served as lead articles editor. I was responsible for evaluating and finally accepting for publication, aricles written by professors and practicing attorneys. Part of my duties included verifying the footnoted sources to ensure accuracy and the referenced source actually suported the proposition. I also verified that the author addressed countervailing authority.

Timothy Sanderfur's article begins with a blunt accusation that Chapman Law Review failed in this process. The opening line bears repeating:

In my opinion, a recent article in the Chapman Law Review, address-ing the controversy over teaching evolution and/or creationism in public school classrooms, fell beneath the acceptable standard of scholarly discourse.

It is nearly unheard of in legal circles to so directly challenge the publication of an article.

Sadly, it needed to be done. Almost every other pro-creationist law review article suffers from the same defects. Footnoted sources don't support the statements made in the body. Footnotes misrepresent the science and singificant countervailing authority os ignored or overlooked.

Timothy Sandefur's article is a great takedown of the ID postmoderdist attack on science. It also raises serious questions for the staff of law reviews.

The beginning suggests a very good article. It looks good both substantively and rhetorically.

The substantive strength is probably obvious, so I won't blather on about it.

Rhetorically it looks strong because you not only point out that the person is deliberately saying false things, but you point out his use of post-modernism, which is so anathema to conservatives and religious folk.

Keep up the good work.

Tim,
Really good article. But, on p 145, did you mean to write "geocentrism" rather than "heliocentrism?"

Just a hypothetical question. Let us say the investment broker or financial adviser of Mr Stephen Trask, embezzles from Trask's account and offers, "There is no absolute truth. It is all semantics and points of view" as his defense, would Trask accept it philosophically?

Would law review publish an article from defense lawyers demanding a right to offer supernatural explanations as part of defense?
There is no establishment clause issues while defending a client in
the courts, unlike a tax payer funded school class room. So
it should be easier to get supernatural theories as defense tactic
in courts. Why don't they try that first?

I'm sorry to say, law reviews will publish just about anything.

Just a hypothetical question. Let us say the investment broker or financial adviser...

Flint said I wonder whether creationists drool with envy...

Damn you. Now I'm going to have to read Trask's article just to assure myself that it could possibly be as bad as you portray it. Not that I doubt you, but when there's a train wreck nearby you just have to see it for yourself.

You only have to read a few sentences of Trask's paper to realize that he doesn't even have the most basic understanding of the TOE, since he consistently refers to it as a theory of how life began. I fail to see how any rational person could accept his arguements, but unfortunately we seem to have an abundance of irrational religionists in the US these days. If Trask and his ilk ever gain political dominance in this country (which is, of course, their goal), our nation and perhaps modern civilization are doomed. I still have hope that such a thing can't happen--but I certainly will never vote for any politician that is also a religious fundamentalist.

Among the tests for determining the existence of a “nonjusticiable” or “political” question is a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the question. -- from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1580.ZS.html

There are many people who doubt Darwinism not because it conflicts with their religious beliefs but because they find it to be unpersuasive as science.

There are many people who doubt Darwinism not because it conflicts with their religious beliefs but because they find it to be unpersuasive as science.

ABC/Larry: There are many people who doubt Darwinism not because it conflicts with their religious beliefs but because they find it to be unpersuasive as science.

Flint:

There are many people who doubt Darwinism not because it conflicts with their religious beliefs but because they find it to be unpersuasive as science.

And, by an amazing coincidence, every one of them just happens to be a Christian Fundamentalist and biblical literalist. But their religious beliefs have nothing to do with rejecting carefully selected bits of science that just happen to conflict with their doctrines. Oh no. Irrespective of their religious faith, they find those bits and ONLY those bits "unpersuasive as science."

Adnan Oktar, aka “Harun Yahya,” is not a Christian Fundamentalist…

Flint: Stanton:

Adnan Oktar, aka “Harun Yahya,” is not a Christian Fundamentalist…

Ah, in that case he must doubt "Darwinism" on purely scientific grounds, is that correct? I suppose I could expand my claim to encompass fundamentalists of closely related faiths, if that would help.

I figured Larry was trying to imply that there were some other even remotely plausible grounds (other than religious) to doubt "Darwinism" (itself a purely religious label for something not understood). Even though of course Larry didn't state what those grounds might be even when asked directly.

Larry's general approach, then, bears as close a resemblance to Lying for Jesus as any other instance of it.

You only have to read a few sentences of Trask’s paper to realize that he doesn’t even have the most basic understanding of the TOE, since he consistently refers to it as a theory of how life began.

I think that we need a special exercise for each posting on Panda's Thumb devoted just to Larry and Keith. For each and every post, we need to submit a comment "in the style of" each. Perhaps the moderator could judge the best. For example, we already know here that Larry will immediately demonstrate conclusively that "Darwinism" must be wrong by citing some irrelevancy on the web that he doesn't understand (a misquote from a speech, or some inane list), and call us all idiots when we repeatedly point out that his "proof" has nothing to do with anything. Meanwhile, Keith Eaton will rave and foam at the mouth about what a bunch of mental midgets we are because we fail to see that by mocking us as unintelligent and citing a creationist website, he has demonstrated that all evolutionary biologists are morons and therefore he has somehow "pwnz0rs" us with his superior intellect. By so doing, we could save a lot of time and space by simply deleting all the repetitive, redundant posts by these two fine scholars, and focus on more substantial discussions. Hell, maybe we could even lure in another troll with a whole new style to freshen up the place.

I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- to discover that Trask is a promoter of Christianity.

To get back to the argument, Flint, the people who doubt Evolution because they claim that they do not find it a credible science, as opposed to claiming that it conflicts with their beliefs, demonstrate three things:

1) They demonstrate that they do not have a basic understanding of Biology (many demonstrate that they lack even a fundamental understanding of elementary school science).

2) They take, or should the word be steal all of their talking points from actual Creationists, and refuse to notice all of the inherent logic flaws of these talking points.

3) They arrogantly assume that they know more about Biology (and science) than actual biologists, and as such, the vast majority refuse to demonstrate even the most remote desire to actually learn about Evolutionary Theory and or Biology.

...

Then there are those extremely rare Creationists (they are pearls among sewage, to steal a phrase from Neil Gaimon) who actually understand how Evolution works and defines Biology, but, one and all, they explicitly state that they reject Evolutionary Theory because it clashes with their beliefs.

Stanton:

1) I disagree with this point. Like anyone else, I cannot be an in-depth expert on every field of science or any other endeavor. To a large degree (like 99% of everything), I must rely on those whom I trust. Now, if I were a good Christian, I might reject evolution on the grounds that those church leaders I find most admirable reject it for what must be good reasons if these are trustworthy people. And having given them my trust, of course I would consider them so.

However, I am NOT rejecting evolution on scientific grounds in this case. If I choose to believe the climatologists who say people are largely responsible for global warming, I'm not doing that on the basis of the evidence either. I'm not qualified to examine or understand the evidence. In short, it's not credible for me to say I find anything "unpersuasive" when I am unqualified to assess the evidence in the required depth. If you lack a basic understanding, your CLAIM that you find what you don't understand "unpersuasive" MUST be based on some other factor(s).

2) This point really has nothing to do with science. They are rejecting evolution on religious grounds, as we know. If something is chock full of obvious flaws, and justified with obvious lies, and you can't see either one, you aren't finding the science unpersuasive, you are finding it uncomfortable. But that's something quite different.

3) I disagree. What's happening there is, their religious faith TELLS them that evolution is wrong a priori. It MUST be wrong, because God (their interpretation of scripture) SAID so. And armed with the Word Of God Itself, of course they must consider that those who disagree must necessarily be more ignorant. It's not that they know more about biology than biologists, it's that they know the biologists are wrong. No really need to know why or how they're wrong, sufficient to know beyond any possible doubt that they ARE wrong, God said so.

As for the pearls among sewage, they illustrate what I've been trying to say quite well. No possible amount of evidence or knowledge can penetrate a creationist conviction. Doesn't matter whether they have a PhD or are stone ignorant - faith trumps knowledge. Studies consistently show that creationists entering college biology programs, graduate as creationist biologists. And they don't do this because they find the science unpersuasive, but because creationism had been indelibly hardwired into their neurological paths by that age, and nothing short of death of physical removal of part of the brain can cure it.

Larry asserted: There are many people who doubt Darwinism not because it conflicts with their religious beliefs but because they find it to be unpersuasive as science.

From the Answers in Genesis "Statement of Faith" that they have all of their "scientists" sign...

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

I think this pretty much validates Flint's point, straight from the horse's mouth.

Flint: Stanton: 1) I disagree with this point. Like anyone else, I cannot be an in-depth expert on every field of science or any other endeavor. To a large degree (like 99% of everything), I must rely on those whom I trust. Now, if I were a good Christian, I might reject evolution on the grounds that those church leaders I find most admirable reject it for what must be good reasons if these are trustworthy people. And having given them my trust, of course I would consider them so. However, I am NOT rejecting evolution on scientific grounds in this case. If I choose to believe the climatologists who say people are largely responsible for global warming, I'm not doing that on the basis of the evidence either. I'm not qualified to examine or understand the evidence. In short, it's not credible for me to say I find anything "unpersuasive" when I am unqualified to assess the evidence in the required depth. If you lack a basic understanding, your CLAIM that you find what you don't understand "unpersuasive" MUST be based on some other factor(s).

Timothy:

That is an excellent response to Trask’s fantasy.

I was at first surprised when Philip Johnson actually started adopting many of the Postmodernist arguments against science, but after a little more thought, not so surprised. The pretentious “sophistication” of those arguments is just the kind of thing that would appeal to sects that have a long history of using logical argumentation and biblical “evidence” to justify their sectarian beliefs. Evidently Trask, Johnson and the others have discovered a gold mine in these kinds of arguments.

I have come to the conclusion over the years that these sects have become the glorious hunting grounds for some of the worst scam artists out there, and that these scam artists are effectively protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of “free exercise” of religion.

Reading crap like Trask’s paper convinces me that Trask, Johnson and all of their cohorts do not really believe what they are writing. It is hard to imagine someone who is articulate enough to write stuff like that, sitting before a computer and living in a modern world where they are so dependent on the results of science, yet thinking that they are saying something profound. I think their crap is carefully crafted for rubes and children, and these scam artists are making good money at it.

How far are they willing go in denying objective reality? What would they do if everything in their lives that had any connection with science whatsoever were denied them (including medicine, heart surgery, safe food, electricity, transportation, computers, cell phones)? Suppose they were then accused of a heinous murder, convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of testimony from witnesses who got their “evidence” through supernatural channels that were claimed to be “reliable” in their holy books?

Articles like Trask’s say as much about the audience for whom they are written as they do about the predatory instincts of the exploiters who write them.

If Trask thinks that responses to his article are “unsophisticated” (as PvM notes), then I would suggest that he is secretly smirking at our stupid lack of appreciation of his scamming abilities. He therefore has the market all to himself. How dumb can we be?

Mike Elzinga: If Trask thinks that responses to his article are “unsophisticated” (as PvM notes), then I would suggest that he is secretly smirking at our stupid lack of appreciation of his scamming abilities. He therefore has the market all to himself. How dumb can we be?

He therefore has the market all to himself. How dumb can we be?

How far are they willing go in denying objective reality?

Reading crap like Trask’s paper convinces me that Trask, Johnson and all of their cohorts do not really believe what they are writing.

Marilyn: You only have to read a few sentences of Trask's paper to realize that he doesn't even have the most basic understanding of the TOE, since he consistently refers to it as a theory of how life began.

See the analysis by Stephen Jay Gould in his essay "Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding":

Gould: Justice Scalia has defined evolution as the search for life's origin--and nothing more. He keeps speaking about 'the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life' when he means to designate evolution.

The vehemence and persistence of their defense of creationism implies to me that they recognize how fragile and arbitrary those walls are. If you don’t get ‘em young enough, they’ll see how absurd creationism really is, and you’ll never cram that genie back into the bottle. Conversely, if you DO get to ‘em young enough, then as Dawkins wrote, there’s no limit to what people can believe against any amount of conflicting evidence.

I don’t think we have a substantial disagreement about the state of mind that keeps creationists in their mental prison. It is basically fear and guilt.

From their writings and their exposure to higher education, they seem too articulate to be unaware of what it is that they are doing, especially since they receive responses from the scientific community that attempt to correct their crap and yet they simply repeat their arguments. It has all the earmarks of conscious orchestration

I think they know full-well that they are scamming, and that it’s an open, protected market for them.

Trask’s paper is just too transparently sleazy to be genuine belief on his part.

If we pick on the local members of congregations, we loose. If we point out the sleaze of their intellectual leaders, we may at least get some independent thinking going.

I think you way overestimate these guys. I really doubt they are aware of the true merits of what they're arguing and are just lying. I think they're genuinely blinded by their preconceived theories--and then they cast about for some justification for those theories. In that sense, they genuinely believe their theories. They "make their reason serve God," as St. Paul says. They really think they're doing good, I think--and the end justifies the means. Plus, they feel so sophisticated and clever when they use Pomobabble.

This last point is worth emphasizing, actually. As Bronowski says in Magic, Science And Civilization, magical thinking is the notion that words can control nature somehow--and religion is really very much centered on a feeling that language can somehow have metaphysical effects. That plays into an fascination with big words and clever phrases among religious leaders and theologians. I think that accounts for a lot of what Trask and similar do with their time. They think they're doing something important because they're using these big words like important people do.

Mike Elzinga wrote (in response to Flint):

"What I am suggesting is that people like Trask and Johnson (and the rest of the herd at DI) know instinctively how to exploit the groundwork that is already prepared for them by the fundamentalist mindset. From their writings and their exposure to higher education, they seem too articulate to be unaware of what it is that they are doing, especially since they receive responses from the scientific community that attempt to correct their crap and yet they simply repeat their arguments. It has all the earmarks of conscious orchestration."

I'm with you, Mike. I think Trask's piece reads as being a coldly calculated attempt to try yet another possible path to get into public school science classrooms in order to inject fundamentalist anti-science mindrot into as many vulnerable young minds as possible. For the leaders, it's a matter of taking power, I suppose to try to turn the US into a fundamentalist theocracy. I guess it comes down to this: do theocratic leaders actually believe the "theology" they espouse, or do they merely use it to control their fearful, credulous and ignorant followers, so that those followers can then be used to achieve the true goals of the leaders? Unfortunately, what I have just written is much to close to being a conspiracy theory for most normal thinking people to pay attention to. But, "steath" strategies succeed by remaining in the shadows until it is too late to quash them. I really have no idea how worried to be about the various fundie groups that aspire to political power in this country. I will be less worried once their pawn Bush is out of the White House.

I think Trask’s piece reads as being a coldly calculated attempt to try yet another possible path to get into public school science classrooms in order to inject fundamentalist anti-science mindrot into as many vulnerable young minds as possible.

because belief in Absolute Truth makes people ruthless,

Yes, there is the problem of two different people speaking for God. It's like the man with two wristwatches. And this is probably why you rarely see delegated or distributed power in theocratic systems. Especially because God invariably ratifies the personal opinions, preferences, fears, and goals of whoever is interpreting His wishes. Where possible, conflicts of this sort are resolved with purges. Where not possible, we see schisms. Compromise isn't really possible.

(And this also plays into why creationist-controlled forums invariably use relentless censorship to ensure the purity of what's visible. They don't have different viewpoints, they have Right And Wrong, and Wrong is not tolerated.)

Timothy,

Thank you for the thorough, erudite, scholarly and clinical dissection of Trask's "argument" (?).

I only hope that the choir he preaches to are able to appreciate your criticism enough to loosen their grip on the fundamentalist "sky-hook".

I guess it comes down to this: do theocratic leaders actually believe the “theology” they espouse, or do they merely use it to control their fearful, credulous and ignorant followers, so that those followers can then be used to achieve the true goals of the leaders? Unfortunately, what I have just written is much to close to being a conspiracy theory for most normal thinking people to pay attention to. But, “steath” strategies succeed by remaining in the shadows until it is too late to quash them. I really have no idea how worried to be about the various fundie groups that aspire to political power in this country. I will be less worried once their pawn Bush is out of the White House.

— Marilyn

That plays into an fascination with big words and clever phrases among religious leaders and theologians. I think that accounts for a lot of what Trask and similar do with their time. They think they’re doing something important because they’re using these big words like important people do.

Reading crap like Trask’s paper convinces me that Trask, Johnson and all of their cohorts do not really believe what they are writing.

A simple experiment would put their theory about objective reality to the test. Perhaps if Trask or others of his kind would just place their wrist on a tree stump...

Flint: Creationists who become lawyers (Trask, Johnson) find legal rationalizations to defend POOF creation. Creationists who become biologists (Wells, Behe) find biological rationalizations. Creationist theologians find theological rationalizations.

I’ll try again. I find it hard to believe it’s this hard to communicate.

Trask and his ilk are not denying objective reality on general principles. They are denying only those narrowly specific aspects of reality that refute narrowly specific religious doctrines. Now, I can see that they are attempting to do so by raising and arguing general principles. They do this because they can sense that cherry-picking bits and pieces of reality to deny, for no reason other than their bible seems to tell them so, is going to smack of special pleading and look self-serving.

Your error is in expecting them to think logically, as you do, and to draw conclusions based on evidence and logic. Instead, they start with TRUTH, and attack only those things that appear to subvert it. This need not be rational, consistent, or even coherent. It need only be true (their version).

I think we do agree at least this much – the way to undermine folks like Trask isn’t really to show that they’re factually incorrect, or legally incorrect. Rather, it’s to show that they are deliberately incorrect.

When they reuse refuted arguments in new venues, even after acknowledging they were wrong in using a particular argument, they must at some point recognize that the argument was worth reusing.

Strategic avoidance of research and hard data are evidence that they are aware of what really counts as opposed to what counts with their audience.

If they want to portray themselves as intelligent citizens and leaders, then they have an obligation to really understand the issues rather than to systematically distort them.

The key, I think, is that Lying For Jesus is perfectly OK, and not in any way dishonest, because the INTENT is correct. I think you are giving these people credit for judgment they can no longer ever again exercise, and then being angry because they exercise bad judgment. But they are NOT exercising judgment in that sense, they don’t have it anymore. If God is telling them to say things they know aren’t true, then those things must be true, so they become true. So what I had to come to understand is, these people are fundamentally not sane.

What a stunning, magnificant coup it would be, if their religious delusions could piggyback on this powerful cachet, being presented as equally valid, and blessed with the Official Description of “scientific”!

I think they DO understand the issues, very clearly. This is a battle for hearts and not minds. But they do not frame the issue as you do. You see it as a battle between scientific understanding against the denial of clear evidence. They see it as a battle to determine social organization, values, and goals. In more political terms, you are libertarian and they are authoritarian. You want people to decide based on the evidence. They want people to OBEY, based on obligation to God (their version, with them as middleman).

I think you are giving these people credit for judgment they can no longer ever again exercise, and then being angry because they exercise bad judgment.

Mike,

I'm pretty much in agreement, except perhaps for emphasis. I think the problem with creationist researchers is, what they keep finding is simply not consistent with what their god TOLD them they would find. Since their god can't be wrong, THEY must be wrong in their interpretations, they must be looking at the evidence wrong, they must have found the wrong evidence, they were told they'd find an elephant and they found only a rope, but the elephant must be there, the rope must be part of it somehow, because their god TOLD them so.

And so I think they regard the greater scientific community as being widely off track, that their god's creation is so far beyond mere human understanding that uninformed (that is, starting without True conclusions) investigation is guaranteed to produce misunderstanding and false impressions. You MUST know the Truth before you start, because their god's creation is beyond human comprehension otherwise.

Where their god's specs seem clearest to them (and which affects them personally), this fallible human inability to grasp their god's wisdom in its full glory is most pernicious. No, they don't know the details either; their god didn't bother to spill them. But their god DID spill enough for them to know that anything that violates Creation (their concept) has GOT to be wrong. It really doesn't matter how voluminous, consistent, or predictive the evidence is. In this respect, anyway, their god's Word is unambiguous. Evolution did not happen.

So I can appreciate their frustration. THEY don't have any clue how to get observed reality to line up with God's Truth. Those who have fallen into what scripture makes clear is obvious error, are making a stronger case with every passing discovery, and they don't know HOW it's wrong, but there's no question THAT it's wrong.

But they do know one thing for sure (and so do we): If only scientific researchers had the Right Faith necessary to know their god's Word and interpret all their findings within this One True Context, none of those researchers would make such egregious errors as saying evolution happens. They would all know better. If only ALL scientists would enthusiastically and sincerely sign the ICR's no-compromise statement of belief, our immortal souls wouldn't be imperiled by errors such as evolution.

But they do know one thing for sure (and so do we): If only scientific researchers had the Right Faith necessary to know their god’s Word and interpret all their findings within this One True Context, none of those researchers would make such egregious errors as saying evolution happens. They would all know better. If only ALL scientists would enthusiastically and sincerely sign the ICR’s no-compromise statement of belief, our immortal souls wouldn’t be imperiled by errors such as evolution.

My personal response, after reading Trask's article: Evolution, Science, and Ideology: Why the Establishment Clause Requires Neutrality in Science Classes, was one of utter dismay, amazement, shock and awe.

The one question that came to mind was: HOW CAN ONE ARGUE WITH LOGIC LIKE THAT? It's would seem impossible, and probably a waste of time because whoever wrote this purposely labyrinthine dribble would probably not be able to understand a logical rebuttal. I would not care to count the faulty premises, misrepresentations, and examples of faulty logic that seem to require the moniker "The Greatest Story Ever Fabricated". An evil insane genius couldn't have done better.

I know this was touched on by J. McFaul, but my next question was: WHO / WHAT IS THE CHAPMAN LAW REVIEW? Don't they have any standards for getting articles published? Do they have Pier Review? Are they another mighty arm of the Discovery Institute and the Republican Party?

Ya, Ya, that's more than one question, but my mind was still spinning.

The rebuttal by Timothy Sandefur was something of a miracle. Hats off to his well-informed, intellectual, and restrained response in Reason and Common Ground: A Response to the Creationists' "Neutrality" Argument. Actually, with my recently acquired negative impression of the Chapman Law Review, I was surprise to see it there.

Using Trask's Introduction, lets condemn literally Everything around us. How about our Legal system... we might submit that metaphysical arguments are discriminated against by our Secular Legal system. (Note: Keep an eye out for unnecessary, misleading, and inflammatory statements.)

Public education is often considered to be one of the most benign aspects of state power. Many people question how such a benevolent institution could be labeled as coercive when it rarely even engages in corporal punishment. It is the dominance of this assumption in society that allows compulsory public education to conceal its considerable coercive power. The source of this power is the inherent capacity of public education to shape how students view the world. Both the public education system and the elites who influence it use this power to serve their own ideological ends. One of the best examples of this ideological coercion is the choice of public schools to teach Secular Law as the exclusive Bible for the American Legal System. Both public schools and federal courts justify the failure to teach alternatives with the claim that Secular Law is the only explanation for the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock . In reality, alternatives to Secular Law are only Illegal to the extent that one relies on a secular definition of Law. Relying on a slanted definition of Secular Law will inevitably produce a rigged game when one determines whether a Law is Legal.